Alone Together: Why "Incentivization" Fails as an Account of Institutional Facts

    Authors

    W. Butchard;R. D'Amico

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Philos. Soc. Sci.

    Keywords

    collective intentions; institutions; construction; social reality; Searle; REALITY; Ethics; Philosophy

    Abstract

    In two articles, Smits, Buekens, and du Plessis have argued that John Searle's account of institutional facts suffers serious flaws and should be replaced with a reductive account they call incentivization. We argue against their view in two ways. First, the specific flaws they find in Searle are based on misunderstandings. Second, incentivization, as they present it, fails as a reduction of strict collective actions and, thus, cannot account for institutional facts such as money or property.

    Journal Title

    Philosophy of the Social Sciences

    Volume

    45

    Issue/Number

    3

    Publication Date

    1-1-2015

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    315

    Last Page

    330

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000354562900002

    ISSN

    0048-3931

    Share

    COinS